Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

Ex Input:
A friend posed the following word puzzle to me: Can you think of a sentence that keeps the same meaning whether you use 'it's' or 'its'? He asserted that this puzzle does in fact have a solution. However, it has me completely stumped. I tried to solve an easier problem, to find a sentence which is still grammatical if you change an 'its' to 'it's', but all I could come up with is examples like 'It's light!' (which is, strictly, more of a sentence fragment). What is the solution to the word puzzle? Or, is there some way I can 'prove' that the puzzle should have no solution?.

Ex Output:
I gather from previous answers that there are two ways in which this question can goeither we interpret it strictly, and don't make assumptions about what it's asking, or we interpret it loosely. If we interpret it loosely, we can bend the rules a bit: As in the Hans Adler's answer, which I was picking on earlier, we can interpret 'same meaning' more loosely. In this case, the solution works well (and I'm sure there are more that work even better) wherein one sentence indicates that you see the tree's apples, and one indicates you see that the fruit which the tree bears is the apple. We can also use a construction (I took this idea from another answer) like: 'I cannot comprehend it's red.' = 'I cannot comprehend its red.' A sneaky solution can be to put 'its' and 'it's' in quotes in the sentence, to come up with something like: 'I wrote a sentence with 'it's' and 'its' in it.' = 'I wrote a sentence with 'its' and 'it's' in it.' We can spell something incorrectly, as Hans Adler ironically points out in the most downvoted answer. Or, as my girlfriend suggested, we can replace the 'it' in the contraction 'it's' with a proper noun (like that clever guy Stephen King did), making 'it's' refer to something that belongs to someone or something named It. In this case the solution becomes again trivial, since 'its' is also a possessive. 'This clown is named It. It's nose is red.' = 'This clown is named It. Its nose is red' (we sadly, in the last case, refer to a clown as an object, but it does have the same meaning) Alternatively All of these answers, to me, are trivial and make the puzzle somewhat boring. If we don't want the puzzle to be boring, we can't cut corners. In this case, as a few have pointed out, it is most likely impossible.


Ex Input:
Are shit, shat, and shitted all correct and fine to use as the past tense of shit? After a little bit of searching it seems that they are, with shat being Old English. Is any form more common in British or American English? Erik Kowal claims that shit is mostly American English and shat British English. [M]ost Americans don't change the verb form for the past tense of certain short verbs ending in -it. So fit, spit, shit, slit and pit are thus formed both in the present and the past tense as far as Americans are concerned, whereas people from Britain would almost always use fitted, spat, shat, slitted and pitted for the past tense. What about shitted?.

Ex Output:
The OED's etymology for this word is: The form shite represents OE. *scitan, pa. t. *scat, pa. pple. -sciten (in be-sciten), corresponding to OFris. *skita (NFris. skitj, pa. t. skad, pa. pple. skedden), MLG. schiten, Dutch schijten, OHG. scian (MHG. schian, mod.G. scheissen), ONor. skita (MSw. skita, Da. skide), f. OTeut. root skit-. The now more common form shit is influenced by the pa. pple. or the related sb. As far as modern/current forms go, it says that: The present tense is either shit or shite. For the past tense, the OED gives all three of shit, shat, shitted as current. So the answer to your question is yes. For the past participle, the OED provides only shit and shat, with shitten last appearing in the 19th century. That means you won't find any one 'correct' answer. Because those variant forms are all used natively by speakers born to the language, all are therefore 'correct'. Use whatever you please.


Ex Input:
There is a saying in Hindi in India 'teri lal' which translates 'yours is red' which means 'Whatever the case may be you are right' as in 'you are always right'. It is a sarcastic way of telling (usually) a know-it-all person (but not meant truly) 'you are right'. Is there an equivalent version of this phrase in English? Example Rohan (the know-it-all): The moon is a sphere John: hmmm Rohan: The moon has its own light. John: OK 'teri lal' (you are right sarcastically).

Ex Output:

Though I agree with the others that the sarcasm is usually implied in the tone of the speaker, there is an idiomatic expression which implies a non-committal agreement without sounding overly offensive: whatever you say TFD(idioms): whatever you say I accept what you say, and I'm not going to argue with you. Usually implies that one doesn't really agree with the other person, but is going to do it to avoid a conflict. A: 'Don't worry about the auditors, just run the numbers like I told you.' B: 'OK, whatever you say, boss.' A: 'I told you, my parents let me borrow the car whenever I want.' B: 'Whatever you say.' Farlex Dictionary of Idioms. © 2015 Farlex, Inc, all rights reserved.


